Politics "WOKE" America

(intro of an intro of an intro)
I appreciate the conversations with young kids as well with the elders but for different reason.
The youngs have alot of this we might call as "a priori' sort of knowledge which in a way insctive,
and in "free fall" decay from day one (birth) until replaced with experience which charakterise the elders, a sort of
"a posteriori" knowledge (Aftermath;) . Absolut replacement is not, it varies to person and their ages. The
symbiotic effect of both they follow us untill the last day (death).
I dont rely my self to manichastic bipolar complexes as well I dont follow the every lazy -supposed as- "third road",
to any of the intellectual questions/cases.


So Imagine now please, how difficult is to say/write/explain the "all time history" and be receiptable
and understable to people of all ages and "classes". (economic, social, political etc.)


At that point not to discourage anyone but that was the intro of an intro of a theme, from the story
that follows.
 
(Intro of an intro)


The theme is about the foundamental relation that of the "Work" and that of the "Play".
(in other discussion we might deploy it further)
So, I suppose now is more clear why and how the elders and the youngs are engaged to the following story.
I also add to the process the "media" the ware; tools, etc, which is necessary for the "our evolution" events.
The "tools" are the "answers" for our questions or to our quest.
The "tools" are respond to necessity and that is the reason they are nescessery.
"To Play" is necessity as you well know, that goes of course the same with " To Work".
We work and enjoy, we work with rules as we have rules for play.
We play and we train ourselves to work , etc etc etc...




This is not mine "gradus ab Parnassum".
This the taste of the "water"... of my return.
I will be abstract but percise, , I will be condensed
I will be parabollic, I will be allegoric, metaphoric
I will be genitve and particullar.
 
THE BICYCLE
[Continuity/discontinuity to anthropologic archetypes. -From Tree to Cave to Stars)]


(intro)
In a timeless space... The story of father his son and a bicycle


For the semiotics/symbolisms:
Father:
is father, is authority, is a boss, is the elite, the bigger, the elder and the power in a sense


Son :
is obvious that is like his father, but -for our achronik/ timeless story- at that moment it
is absolutelly the opposite in many senses.


The Bicycle:
It is the "media" the "ware"(the hammer, the sickle, the every machine, the Radio,Tv,intwernet etc, etc.)
It is also the cost, the value and the price, it is the holy grial
It is the acropolis of troy. It is the Fire, it is the Wheel, it is the Ship and every thing you see
and you imagine. It is elsments that shape civilizations transform economies
reshape social constructs.
(The entity of play/work system as I mention to previous post)


(theme)
The father is a hard working person, mid- class, his interest all was about the family and nothig else.
He is "trying hard" and he is proud for his family. The son is a good and honest boy, he is not the best pupil
but he is up of the average mates but not the best, He (the son) is also truying hard like his dad, and he wouldn;t
like to be ashame his father and the family.
One day the son ask his father if it was possible to buy(*cost/value/price) a Bicyle (*the ware, the media, the abillity)
<<Quite heavy burden is the expences for the family>>, the father thought, but he was wiilingfully to satisfy his son even with such a cost.
So he(father) "bought some time" and make a deal with his son and he said: <<ok, we wll buy it but bring me good grades
at end of the scool season>>... The boy compromised.
That was it. The boy tried a lot harder. He did not close the book if not finished. The father watching him and he was
satisfied with the win/win effect of their (social/politic) contract. Everything was perfect.


(epilogue)
The time goes by and trully the boy manage and had good grades. His father bought him the bicycle.
At that time it was a very good one. The boy was very happy for his wishes being fullfilled


Now all the road is opened in front him,
but all the books closed...
and never... but never opened again...


The End


-How was it ?
Ok, ok, ok
We finish our ":milk" and we go to de(a)d. Goodnight. :bored:




My Eucharistias (Thanks)


ΠΑΝΑΞ 2021
 
good thing to start would probably be to remove the social categories with which people are grouped nowadays. the grouping of people according to their race for example is imo highly problematic. and it is no surprise that this woke movement is strongly influnced by what is happening in the US, where these categories are used and also in britain. there the society is also more "aristocratic" than in other european countries, that's at least how i felt when i was there.
one could argue that nordic countries are on the same level but here you almost never hear "woke" news from scandinavia, they either seem to do it better or people are just more interested in the anglo world.
 
WOKE Ideology took over Scandinavia long ago and so completely that virtually no one there complains about it. You hear about it in the, broadly speaking, "Anglo-World" because there are still people in that world who resist it and speak out against it even though the response is often to try and destroy their careers, i.e. Jordon Peterson and on and on.
 
WOKE Ideology took over Scandinavia long ago and so completely that virtually no one there complains about it. You hear about it in the, broadly speaking, "Anglo-World" because there are still people in that world who resist it and speak out against it even though the response is often to try and destroy their careers, i.e. Jordon Peterson and on and on.

North Europeans are too sober for woke:grin:
 
Last edited:
If I were to make an ethnic based analysis of the situation in Sweden I would instead propose that political correctness (or Wokeness, to use the new term) has so completely taken over countries like Sweden because of an, imo, unfortunate tendency toward over-conformism, as Swedes themselves seem to acknowledge.

Question: Is Sweden the most politically correct country in Europe?

Henrik Robeck



, former Naval Officer at Royal Swedish Navy (1986-2001)


"Yes, I would definitely say that is the case.Swedish people have always been a consensus striving nation, we don’t like different opinions and we like to argue and convince the other part of a discussion.
Today there is almost no tolerance towards different opinions and people are, like most millennial's offended if someone disagrees.
We have taken it to another level as people who are not considered being politically correct are actually in breach of something called “värdegrunden” (värde = values, grund =foundation) and that is by new policies a breach against the “common belief” that people can get fired from state employment, just as if you had committed a crime or other infractions of the law.


There is a dental hygienist who reported that several of the so called “unaccompanied children” had fully developed wisdom teeth and therefore could not possibly be anything but adults, to the immigration office. While that was the instruction as only refugees and unaccompanied children has the right to free dental care, his employer fired him for breaking the “värdegrund” and won the case in court, thus the hygienist had to pay for the proceedings, in total the sum of £60,000.
I fully believe the “political correctness” has gone the furthest as anyone not fully adhering to the correct views are considered a fascist, Internet troll or worse, even the press who should be the “third power” to keep a vigilant eye on the possible abuse from the state, is more conducting a witch hunt of people expression their opinion about the political policies and decisions that affects the Swedish citizens."


That is why, as I said above, you don't hear complaints against "Wokeness" (or Political Correctness, to use the original term) from Scandinavia. There is no more dissent; it has been quashed. It's all very logical if you just look at the facts non-ideologically, and, if I might say so, without always approaching things from a "Nordic" is always better perspective.

Instead of this kind of attempt to view the situation always in terms lauding one's own part of Europe, I would suggest picking up the books of Marx and reading them, and also a good history of the Soviet Union, especially in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. That would hopefully lead to more informed opinions on the matter. This is a problem which far supersedes petty European divisions. It affects all the world's democracies.
 
If I were to make an ethnic based analysis of the situation in Sweden I would instead propose that political correctness (or Wokeness, to use the new term) has so completely taken over countries like Sweden because of an, imo, unfortunate tendency toward over-conformism, as Swedes themselves seem to acknowledge.

Question: Is Sweden the most politically correct country in Europe?

Henrik Robeck



, former Naval Officer at Royal Swedish Navy (1986-2001)


"Yes, I would definitely say that is the case.Swedish people have always been a consensus striving nation, we don’t like different opinions and we like to argue and convince the other part of a discussion.
Today there is almost no tolerance towards different opinions and people are, like most millennial's offended if someone disagrees.
We have taken it to another level as people who are not considered being politically correct are actually in breach of something called “värdegrunden” (värde = values, grund =foundation) and that is by new policies a breach against the “common belief” that people can get fired from state employment, just as if you had committed a crime or other infractions of the law.


There is a dental hygienist who reported that several of the so called “unaccompanied children” had fully developed wisdom teeth and therefore could not possibly be anything but adults, to the immigration office. While that was the instruction as only refugees and unaccompanied children has the right to free dental care, his employer fired him for breaking the “värdegrund” and won the case in court, thus the hygienist had to pay for the proceedings, in total the sum of £60,000.
I fully believe the “political correctness” has gone the furthest as anyone not fully adhering to the correct views are considered a fascist, Internet troll or worse, even the press who should be the “third power” to keep a vigilant eye on the possible abuse from the state, is more conducting a witch hunt of people expression their opinion about the political policies and decisions that affects the Swedish citizens."


That is why, as I said above, you don't hear complaints against "Wokeness" (or Political Correctness, to use the original term) from Scandinavia. There is no more dissent; it has been quashed. It's all very logical if you just look at the facts non-ideologically, and, if I might say so, without always approaching things from a "Nordic" is always better perspective.

Instead of this kind of attempt to view the situation always in terms lauding one's own part of Europe, I would suggest picking up the books of Marx and reading them, and also a good history of the Soviet Union, especially in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. That would hopefully lead to more informed opinions on the matter. This is a problem which far supersedes petty European divisions. It affects all the world's democracies.


I don't know exactly the situation in Sweden, what I see in whole Northern Europe is a tendency to a sense of soberness, somewhat on distance, reserved, without much words.... I must say: wrong impression or not I like that spirit somewhat.....

May be it's really a difference in Europe. My woman is half French and when she is talking with her father (mais non! attend attend! mais vraiment uuuuh) I always get the impression they get in some fight. And they always are surprised that when I state, 'hey are you in a fight or what', nooooo not at all.

Nevertheless Northerners like me are sometimes vulcano's under icebergs.....hahahah

Political correct is wrong when there is some "internal policy officer" that plays the role of 'censor'.

But I truly I'm convinced that was in the nineties much much stronger than now. Because some are confusing being anti-PC with rude, 'I say everything what I want to say'. How hatred, stupid or impolite it is....I don't know if that is either a step forward in the civilization. Most of the time....not.
 
Last edited:
WOKE Ideology took over Scandinavia long ago and so completely that virtually no one there complains about it. You hear about it in the, broadly speaking, "Anglo-World" because there are still people in that world who resist it and speak out against it even though the response is often to try and destroy their careers, i.e. Jordon Peterson and on and on.

well, i can't say a lot about scandinavia, since i do not know the general opinion of the people there. but what if there aren't that many complains because the problems really aren't that big? or the majoirity of people agrees with it? i also think the situations in denmark norway and sweden are all different anyways. in the interview you posted i can not see a lot of "wokeness" either.
In the interview with those scandinavians,Peterson makes the claim that the more egalitarian a society is the more unequal are men and women. and that this is mostly because of biology. when the women talked it was mostly because of this claim. and i see no real denial of science here. Peterson imo failed to explain his point understandable.

the causality is not clear between egalitarism and those differences. let's assume more egalitarian societies are more wealthy thus in theory people probably have more freedom of choice. but does this mean that the choices made are entirely or mostly biologically explainable? because egalitarian societies today might still have a different understanding of what women or men have to be despite giving them more freedom of choice. this would mean when Jordan says that by reducing cultural influence you increase biological influence it is not really this clear. it could also be, that by reducing influence of one cultural aspect you increase the influence of simply another cultural aspect.

the study in Science which Peterson mentions several times for example did not make the claim that that the observed differences between men and women in egalitarian societies are mostly biological. in fact, if the study is indeed the one, then the authors even say that there must be a cultural factor, because of the observed variation within genders and that the observed differences are not that big.

Peterson might have a point, but saying that there is no cultural problem at all is maybe not really good either. i know men who openly admitted, that when they get beaten in something, doesn't matter what, it hurts more for them if it was a women. this might also be biological who knows. in the past the opponent of a man was usually another man. maybe men are also programmed to work togehter or make deals more likely with other men because in the past this was maybe more beneficial.
it's clear at some point people have to admit that genetics do play an important role, but imo, many of the created social groupings we still have today are outdated and need to be removed, replaced with individuals. and yes i know this extreme "woke" movement is doint the exact opposite.
 
well, i can't say a lot about scandinavia, since i do not know the general opinion of the people there. but what if there aren't that many complains because the problems really aren't that big? or the majoirity of people agrees with it? i also think the situations in denmark norway and sweden are all different anyways. in the interview you posted i can not see a lot of "wokeness" either.
In the interview with those scandinavians,Peterson makes the claim that the more egalitarian a society is the more unequal are men and women. and that this is mostly because of biology. when the women talked it was mostly because of this claim. and i see no real denial of science here. Peterson imo failed to explain his point understandable.

the causality is not clear between egalitarism and those differences. let's assume more egalitarian societies are more wealthy thus in theory people probably have more freedom of choice. but does this mean that the choices made are entirely or mostly biologically explainable? because egalitarian societies today might still have a different understanding of what women or men have to be despite giving them more freedom of choice. this would mean when Jordan says that by reducing cultural influence you increase biological influence it is not really this clear. it could also be, that by reducing influence of one cultural aspect you increase the influence of simply another cultural aspect.

the study in Science which Peterson mentions several times for example did not make the claim that that the observed differences between men and women in egalitarian societies are mostly biological. in fact, if the study is indeed the one, then the authors even say that there must be a cultural factor, because of the observed variation within genders and that the observed differences are not that big.

Peterson might have a point, but saying that there is no cultural problem at all is maybe not really good either. i know men who openly admitted, that when they get beaten in something, doesn't matter what, it hurts more for them if it was a women. this might also be biological who knows. in the past the opponent of a man was usually another man. maybe men are also programmed to work togehter or make deals more likely with other men because in the past this was maybe more beneficial.
it's clear at some point people have to admit that genetics do play an important role, but imo, many of the created social groupings we still have today are outdated and need to be removed, replaced with individuals. and yes i know this extreme "woke" movement is doint the exact opposite.


I don't know if woke has something to with regarding that people are 'created equal'. In others words: differentiated but all with an inborn human dignity.....
 
well, i can't say a lot about scandinavia, since i do not know the general opinion of the people there. but what if there aren't that many complains because the problems really aren't that big? or the majoirity of people agrees with it? i also think the situations in denmark norway and sweden are all different anyways. in the interview you posted i can not see a lot of "wokeness" either.
In the interview with those scandinavians,Peterson makes the claim that the more egalitarian a society is the more unequal are men and women. and that this is mostly because of biology. when the women talked it was mostly because of this claim. and i see no real denial of science here. Peterson imo failed to explain his point understandable.

the causality is not clear between egalitarism and those differences. let's assume more egalitarian societies are more wealthy thus in theory people probably have more freedom of choice. but does this mean that the choices made are entirely or mostly biologically explainable? because egalitarian societies today might still have a different understanding of what women or men have to be despite giving them more freedom of choice. this would mean when Jordan says that by reducing cultural influence you increase biological influence it is not really this clear. it could also be, that by reducing influence of one cultural aspect you increase the influence of simply another cultural aspect.

the study in Science which Peterson mentions several times for example did not make the claim that that the observed differences between men and women in egalitarian societies are mostly biological. in fact, if the study is indeed the one, then the authors even say that there must be a cultural factor, because of the observed variation within genders and that the observed differences are not that big.

Peterson might have a point, but saying that there is no cultural problem at all is maybe not really good either. i know men who openly admitted, that when they get beaten in something, doesn't matter what, it hurts more for them if it was a women. this might also be biological who knows. in the past the opponent of a man was usually another man. maybe men are also programmed to work togehter or make deals more likely with other men because in the past this was maybe more beneficial.
it's clear at some point people have to admit that genetics do play an important role, but imo, many of the created social groupings we still have today are outdated and need to be removed, replaced with individuals. and yes i know this extreme "woke" movement is doint the exact opposite.

Wasn't my point precisely that there is no controversy because everyone has conformed to those ideas? It's only mainly in the "Anglophone world" that there is still resistance.

Everything the Scandinavians argued in that clip is what "WOKE" people would say.

You completely misunderstand what Peterson said and the nature of the division of viewpoint.

Let me put it in very simple terms.

NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

As Peterson has said ad nauseam, no decent person would argue that there shouldn't be equality of opportunity for men/women, different races, religions, ethnicities, and on and on.

The issue is what explains the INEQUALITY OF RESULT AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT.

The woke world view which has taken over, for example, Sweden, says that inequality of result is because of the social conditioning of women, to use the man/woman situation. Therefore, to use an easily quantifiable example, there are less women in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) because they are socially conditioned to not want to enter into those fields. If any disparity exists, quotas should be mandated.

What Peterson is pointing out is that there is a mountain of scientific literature which indisputably shows that as social constraints against women are removed, women in the STEM fields don't increase; they don't even stay stable; they DECREASE.

The woke response is that we'll just have to push girls harder to enter those fields.

That isn't free choice. Women in Sweden are free to choose. They CHOOSE, by increasing numbers, NOT to enter those fields but to enter fields where people are more important than objects. That is an innate temperamental difference between men and women ON AVERAGE.

As he has also said ad nauseam: men and women are more alike than they are different. If you look at a graph and choose random men and women from the center of the distribution curve, men are about 60% more likely than women to be violent. I don't know the figure offhand for interest in engineering, for example. HOWEVER, if you go to the extremes and look at 100 people, the violent ones are all men. Higher order mathematics and engineering would show the same kind of skew.

You aren't going to get equality of outcome in some of these areas by insisting that girls play with blocks or by forcing them into higher order math. If you force firms to hire 50% female engineers and 50% male engineers regardless of qualifications, you're going to get a less competent group of engineers.

All that should matter in professions or college admissions is COMPETENCE, or we are doomed as societies.

I find him crystal clear in his explanations. I don't understand the issue in understanding him.
 
Wasn't my point precisely that there is no controversy because everyone has conformed to those ideas? It's only mainly in the "Anglophone world" that there is still resistance.

Everything the Scandinavians argued in that clip is what "WOKE" people would say.

You completely misunderstand what Peterson said and the nature of the division of viewpoint.

Let me put it in very simple terms.

NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

As Peterson has said ad nauseam, no decent person would argue that there shouldn't be equality of opportunity for men/women, different races, religions, ethnicities, and on and on.

The issue is what explains the INEQUALITY OF RESULT AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT.

The woke world view which has taken over, for example, Sweden, says that inequality of result is because of the social conditioning of women, to use the man/woman situation. Therefore, to use an easily quantifiable example, there are less women in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) because they are socially conditioned to not want to enter into those fields. If any disparity exists, quotas should be mandated.

What Peterson is pointing out is that there is a mountain of scientific literature which indisputably shows that as social constraints against women are removed, women in the STEM fields don't increase; they don't even stay stable; they DECREASE.

The woke response is that we'll just have to push girls harder to enter those fields.

That isn't free choice. Women in Sweden are free to choose. They CHOOSE, by increasing numbers, NOT to enter those fields but to enter fields where people are more important than objects. That is an innate temperamental difference between men and women ON AVERAGE.

As he has also said ad nauseam: men and women are more alike than they are different. If you look at a graph and choose random men and women from the center of the distribution curve, men are about 60% more likely than women to be violent. I don't know the figure offhand for interest in engineering, for example. HOWEVER, if you go to the extremes and look at 100 people, the violent ones are all men. Higher order mathematics and engineering would show the same kind of skew.

You aren't going to get equality of outcome in some of these areas by insisting that girls play with blocks or by forcing them into higher order math. If you force firms to hire 50% female engineers and 50% male engineers regardless of qualifications, you're going to get a less competent group of engineers.

All that should matter in professions or college admissions is COMPETENCE, or we are doomed as societies.

I find him crystal clear in his explanations. I don't understand the issue in understanding him.

your point wasn't only that everyone has conformed to those ideas but that this happened because the resistance has been squashed. how would you know that?

just because those scandinavians said something that "woke" people would say doesn't mean that they are "woke" nor that they are wrong.

i think i didn't misunderstand Peterson. he made several different points in his interview, with some of them i agree btw, but one of them, which was the one adressed by the women, namely that in egalitarian societies the difference between men and women is mostly biological, is not supported by the paper he himself mentions.
 
One could point the finger at woke rhetoric for inspiring the the mass-shooting that left 10 people dead in Colorado.

Apparently, the brother of the suspect said that the shooter was paranoid about Islamophobia:

https://www.newsweek.com/ahmad-alissas-facebook-posts-islam-kickboxing-girlfriend-1578167

Perhaps some political leaders on the left should be held accountable for inspiring a terrorist attack.

I don't get that kind of thought.....I don't see the connection between "the left" who is the left? And make the connection plausible of "the left" with a paranoïd type?
 
If I were to make an ethnic based analysis of the situation in Sweden I would instead propose that political correctness (or Wokeness, to use the new term) has so completely taken over countries like Sweden because of an, imo, unfortunate tendency toward over-conformism, as Swedes themselves seem to acknowledge.

Question: Is Sweden the most politically correct country in Europe?

Henrik Robeck



, former Naval Officer at Royal Swedish Navy (1986-2001)


"Yes, I would definitely say that is the case.Swedish people have always been a consensus striving nation, we don’t like different opinions and we like to argue and convince the other part of a discussion.
Today there is almost no tolerance towards different opinions and people are, like most millennial's offended if someone disagrees.
We have taken it to another level as people who are not considered being politically correct are actually in breach of something called “värdegrunden” (värde = values, grund =foundation) and that is by new policies a breach against the “common belief” that people can get fired from state employment, just as if you had committed a crime or other infractions of the law.


There is a dental hygienist who reported that several of the so called “unaccompanied children” had fully developed wisdom teeth and therefore could not possibly be anything but adults, to the immigration office. While that was the instruction as only refugees and unaccompanied children has the right to free dental care, his employer fired him for breaking the “värdegrund” and won the case in court, thus the hygienist had to pay for the proceedings, in total the sum of £60,000.
I fully believe the “political correctness” has gone the furthest as anyone not fully adhering to the correct views are considered a fascist, Internet troll or worse, even the press who should be the “third power” to keep a vigilant eye on the possible abuse from the state, is more conducting a witch hunt of people expression their opinion about the political policies and decisions that affects the Swedish citizens."


That is why, as I said above, you don't hear complaints against "Wokeness" (or Political Correctness, to use the original term) from Scandinavia. There is no more dissent; it has been quashed. It's all very logical if you just look at the facts non-ideologically, and, if I might say so, without always approaching things from a "Nordic" is always better perspective.

Instead of this kind of attempt to view the situation always in terms lauding one's own part of Europe, I would suggest picking up the books of Marx and reading them, and also a good history of the Soviet Union, especially in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. That would hopefully lead to more informed opinions on the matter. This is a problem which far supersedes petty European divisions. It affects all the world's democracies.

My impression is that the mood in Scandinavia has shifted completely during the 2015 migration crisis.
Political correctness still exists and is still being preached and broadcasted through certain channels, but it has lost it's audience, except for some die-hards.
 
I don't get that kind of thought.....I don't see the connection between "the left" who is the left? And make the connection plausible of "the left" with a paranoïd type?

Apparently, Ilhan Omar, a U.S. representative is facing backlash for mentioning that the shooter was what she thought a white male, and tried to make a point about it. But it turns out he was a ethnic-Syrian Muslim.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/ilhan-omar-ripped-for-tweet-about-ahmad-al-aliwi-alissas-race/

I don't understand, I thought Islam was a religion, and even white people can be Muslim, like Albanians. As a matter of fact, it is ironic, because if Ilhan Omar went to some Islamic countries, they might abuse her for being a black Ethiopian. I don't think they really care what religion she is.

The recent case of Alem Dechesa brought to light the horrors faced by migrant workers in Lebanon. Dechesa, a domestic worker from Ethiopia, committed suicide after suffering terrible mental and physical abuse at the hands of her Lebanese employers, whose savage beating of her in front of the Ethiopian Consulate went viral last year.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/7/7/confronting-anti-black-racism-in-the-arab-world
 
your point wasn't only that everyone has conformed to those ideas but that this happened because the resistance has been squashed. how would you know that?

just because those scandinavians said something that "woke" people would say doesn't mean that they are "woke" nor that they are wrong.

i think i didn't misunderstand Peterson. he made several different points in his interview, with some of them i agree btw, but one of them, which was the one adressed by the women, namely that in egalitarian societies the difference between men and women is mostly biological, is not supported by the paper he himself mentions.

Did you read the papers? If you had and had understood them there is no way you could make that statement, but I'm not here to teach reading comprehension at the level of these kinds of papers or, for that matter, logic. Nowhere, btw, did he say it is MOSTLY biological. Straw man arguments are childish at this level of discourse.
 
Apparently, Ilhan Omar, a U.S. representative is facing backlash for mentioning that the shooter was what she thought a white male, and tried to make a point about it. But it turns out he was a ethnic-Syrian Muslim.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/ilhan-omar-ripped-for-tweet-about-ahmad-al-aliwi-alissas-race/

I don't understand, I thought Islam was a religion, and even white people can be Muslim, like Albanians. As a matter of fact, it is ironic, because if Ilhan Omar went to some Islamic countries, they might abuse her for being a black Ethiopian. I don't think they really care what religion she is.

what i don't understand is how someone can be "misidentified" as white rofl. how is that even possible? and aren't people from near east white anyways?
 
Did you read the papers? If you had and had understood them there is no way you could make that statement, but I'm not here to teach reading comprehension at the level of these kinds of papers or, for that matter, logic. Nowhere, btw, did he say it is MOSTLY biological. Straw man arguments are childish at this level of discourse.

oh please then let me quote him. at 11:30 in the clip he says:"and so you get differences in occupational choice, that are also btw quite great in scandinavia, especially in the case of engineering and nursing. they are mostly due to biological differences."

also here some words from one of the authors of the paper that appeared in science: "The biggest misinterpretation could be that our results indicate that social or gender-specific roles do not matter in the formation of gender differences in preferences,” “I do think that they matter a lot.”
 

This thread has been viewed 130977 times.

Back
Top